Archive for the 'Divorce Law' Category

A Kentucky judge has granted the state’s first same-sex divorce, despite a state law banning the recognition of gay marriage.

Judge Joseph O’Reilly allowed the divorce of two Louisville women who were legally married in Massachusetts. This is the first ruling of its kind in the state of Kentucky.

Kentucky’s law does not recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in any other state; however, O’Reilly ruled that disallowing same-sex couples to divorce violates a Kentucky constitutional law granting equal rights of all people.

In O’Reilly’s eight-page ruling that dissolved the marriage of Alysha Romero and Rebecca Sue Romero, the judge also said that Kentucky divorce law mandates it to be “liberally construed” to encourage “amicable settlements” of disagreements between spouses.

Alysha Romero said she was happy that she and her former spouse would not have to incur the expense of travelling to Massachusetts to obtain a legal divorce.

“I am happy the judge made the right decision,” she said.

Romero’s lawyer, Louis Waterman, added, “I am just thrilled with Judge O’Reilly’s courage. I think he had a lot of chutzpah to do what he did.”

Douglas Haynes, Rebecca Romero’s attorney, said his client was also pleased with the decision but declined to further comment.

O’Reilly issued the ruling on December 29, but apparently waiting to release his statement to the public so his verdict was final and could not be challenged, according to Waterman. The decision cannot be appealed and is now precedent in Jefferson County. While the ruling can be cited, it is not governing in other cases across Kentucky.

Kentucky law states marriage of same-sex couples in another jurisdiction “shall be void” in the state, and that all rights allowed “by virtue of the marriage, or its termination, shall be unenforceable in Kentucky courts.”

Waterman argued that the denial of a same-sex divorce inconsistently impedes on the state’s prohibition of gay marriage by allowing one to continue.

The Romeros married in Boston in 2009; they moved to Kentucky in 2011. Their divorce was filed in 2013.

Chris Rock has filed for divorce from wife Malaak Compton-Rock after nearly 20 years of marriage.

“After much contemplation and 19 years of marriage, Chris and I have decided to go our separate ways,” Compton-Rock said in a statement, according to People.

“My children remain at the center of my life, and their well-being is my top priority. It is in this spirit that I sincerely ask that their privacy and the privacy of our family be respected during this transition in our lives.”

Rock’s attorney, Robert S. Cohen, has confirmed the separation.

“Chris Rock has filed for divorce from his wife, Malaak,” Cohen said in a statement. “This is a personal matter and Chris requests privacy as he and Malaak work through this process and focus on their family.”

In his comedy acts, Rock has been outspoken and candidly sharp about marriage.

“Nelson Mandela got divorced,” Rock once said in a routine. “He got out of jail after 27 years of torture, spent six months with his wife and said, ‘I can’t take this [expletive] no more.'”

In 2010, the couple defended their marriage and denied claims that Rock fathered a child out of wedlock.

According to People, a source close to the couple stated: “This was a long time coming. Chris has known it wasn’t salvageable for a while. He was the one to file because he knew it was time to just move forward already.”

Rock, 49, wed Compton-Rock, 45, in 1996. They currently reside in Alpine, New Jersey. The couple is parents to two daughters, Lola Simone, 12, and Zahra Savannah, 10.

Rock began his career as a standup coming and appeared in several small film roles before joining the case of Saturday Night Live in the early 1990s. He produced the award winning series “Everybody Hates Chris” and starred in many prominent films and HBO comedy specials.

The Missouri Supreme Court will decide if a same-sex couple married in Iowa can get divorced in the state of Missouri.

Attorney Drey Cooley, who represents a man identified as M.S., argued in front of state Supreme Court judges Wednesday that Missouri should dissolve the union, even though the state does not allow same-sex marriage.

The couple separated in August 2013. They requested for a divorce in January but a St. Louis County Circuit Court judge denied the petition, naming Missouri’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The case does not seek to address the legality of gay marriage in the state of Missouri. Cooley argues that Missouri can dissolve this same-sex marriage without also acknowledging the marriage.

Cooley’s client “just wants the same rights that anyone else would want to be in that situation—to get dissolved and move on.”

The state’s current ban has come into question recently: an October decision in Jackson County declared that Missouri must acknowledge same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Missouri’s Republican leaders have vowed to appeal the Jackson County decision, which Democratic Attorney General Chris Koster said he will not fight.

On November 4, St. Louis city Circuit Judge Rex Burlison found Missouri’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, motivating many same-sex couples to get married at city hall that day. Two days later, U.S. Circuit Judge Ortie Smith in Kansas City also ruled the ban unconstitutional.

Koster, who is for gay marriage, appealed both rulings, stating he is forced to uphold Missouri’s laws in court.

Cooley contends the state Supreme Court could avoid deciding the legality of same-sex marriage by ordering the union be observed like other out-of-state marriages for the intent of divorces. As an example, common-law marriages are not recognized in Missouri but can still be dissolved by a judge.

The U.S. Supreme Court may also hear arguments on same-sex divorce in 2015.

Lauren Czekala-Chatham and Dana Ann Melacon were married in 2008 in California. Last year, DeSoto County Chancery Judge Mitchell Lundy Jr. ruled that they cannot be granted a divorce as Mississippi.

“All same sex Mississippi couples lack a right to have their marriage recognized by the state regardless of whether newly arrived here, having lived here all their life or anywhere in between,” Assistant Attorney General Harold E. Pizzetta III stated.

However Czekala-Chatham’s attorney does not agree.

“Lauren does not seek to be married — she seeks a divorce. Lauren does not complain of Mississippi’s refusal to recognize her marriage…her complaint is that Mississippi law relegates her to a declaration of voidness, when a party to an opposite-sex marriage in otherwise similar circumstances would be entitled to a divorce,” her attorney was quoted by the Associated Press.

Since Czekala-Chatham’s appeal, U.S. District Judges overturned same-sex marriage bans in both Mississippi and Arkansas, stating the ban was unconstitutional.

Both U.S. District Judges put the enforcement of their decisions on hold in expectancy of appeals, meaning legal recognition of same-sex marriage in both states is still forthcoming.

That leaves Czekala-Chatham’s divorce case in limbo.

“It’s a very unfortunate predicament to be in, because you realize you cannot get divorced in your state of residence,” says Kody Silva, a Washington D. C. divorce attorney. “And the state you were married in will not allow you to get divorced unless you go back and essentially become a resident of that state.”

Silva states that, essentially, Czekala-Chatham would have to move back to California and become a resident in order to make her divorce legal. So instead, she appealed her case to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

“People get divorced. It’s a part of life. We don’t want it to happen, but it happens,” Czekala-Chatham says. “If we can get the state to recognize an out-of-state marriage, maybe down the road we can get them to recognize same-sex marriage and allow it in the state.”

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryan expects the state to appeal the State Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision.

A new law took effect in Oklahoma on November 1 that requires divorcing couples to attend a class if underage children are involved.

Couples with children, age 18 or under, seeking divorce on grounds of incompatibility will have to take a class on the effects of divorce in children. Additionally, they will have to pay to attend the class.

This measure was enacted in an effort to lower Oklahoma’s divorce rate, as well as to help children cope with their parents’ separation.

“I think that it is a good idea, I think parents will think about the divorce and impact that it has on the children and it will help them see the consequences,” said Teresa Deck, Director of Counseling at Oklahoma City’s Sunbeam Family Services.

The courses will include topics such as the effects of divorce on children, family violence consequences, reconciliation options, conflict-resolution and co-parenting strategies, as well as family service resources.

However, some experts have some serious concerns about the new law.

Oklahoma City attorney Gail Stricklin says the law presents a danger to victims of domestic violence who are attempting to leave an abusive relationship.

“We all want to encourage someone to get away from an abusive relationship, but if you are in the same parenting class, which in many counties is the only option, you are going to have some incidents,” Stricklin added.

At this time, the law gives no particular exemption for victims of violence. There is a general “good cause” exception, meaning a judge will decide which couples are exempt from attending the program.

Both partners must present a certificate of completion to move forward with divorce proceedings.

Classes will range between $15 and $60.

Judges will decide how many hours are necessary on a case by case basis. The program must be finished within 45 days of the initial divorce filing.

Following decisions made by several states this week, 32 states have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule upon the legality of same-sex marriage.

Massachusetts filed a brief Thursday, along with fourteen states that allow gay marriage, asking the justices to overturn bans in Utah and Oklahoma. Colorado, along with sixteen states, requested justices to resolve several lawsuits in Virginia, Oklahoma and Utah. They did not push the court to rule upon the ban.

The filing followed a ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Wisconsin’s and Indiana’s same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional. The decision was made by a unanimously opinioned three-judge panel, stating that the bans were “discriminatory” and “totally implausible.”

Wisconsin and Indiana had argued that allowing same-sex marriage would damage the safety of children in heterosexual marriage. In a 40-page decision, the court stated the claim is “so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.”

Judge Martin L.C. Feldman’s ruling is the first to support a state’s decision to bar same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court’s denial of part of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. He also upheld Louisiana’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages formed in other states.

In his judgment, Feldman maintains that the laws of marriage should be determined by the individual state. He asserts the ban does not violate any fundamental rights and that Louisiana had a “legitimate interest…whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others…in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents,” as reported by the New York Times.

Last week, courts in both Arizona and California ruled that marriages of two transgender men were valid and that they can, in fact, divorce.

Thomas Beatie, 40, was born female and in 1997 he underwent assessment to determine his psychological gender. In 2002 he began a series of gender-reassignment surgeries and in 2005 legally changed his gender to male on his birth certificate.

When determined his wife was infertile, Beatie became pregnant through artificial insemination. Beatie appeared on numerous talk shows as “The Pregnant Man” and gave birth to his first child in 2008.

By 2011, the couple had two more children.

On August 13th, an Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the marriage between Thomas Beatie and Nancy J. Beatie was lawful and that their union may be dissolved by divorce.

The couple was married in Hawaii and was originally refused the power to divorce by a lower Arizona Court, recognizing the couple as same-sex and therefore an invalid marriage.

“The question before this Court is not whether the State of Arizona allows same-sex marriage or divorce, but whether the laws of the State of Arizona allow a marriage, lawfully entered into in another state, between two persons the foreign state formally recognized at the time of the marriage as male and female, to be dissolved,” the appellate decision said, as quoted in AZ Central News.

Arizona’s ruling followed a similar decision by the Superior Court of California. The previous week, the marriage of adult firm star Jake Miller, known as Buck Angel, and his wife Elayne, was ruled as valid. Miller was born female and modified his birth certificate years after the couple’s Louisiana marriage.

According to an article on Transgender Law Center, Elayne Angel argued that the union was invalid due to Miller’s female birth certificate status at the time of marriage. The Superior court ruled that Miller was legally male and that Louisiana law will identify the union as one between male and female.

Both couples are allowed to continue with their respective divorce proceedings.

According to USA Today, Beatie said in a statement released by his attorney, “I feel I have finally been recognized in Arizona as not just a man, but a human being.”

For parents going through a divorce, Utah currently has a state mandated, in-person, divorce orientation course.

The belief of many is that when someone files for divorce, divorce is inevitable. The belief of some is that there is hope to salvage some marriages.

Alan Hawkins, a Brigham Young University professor, teaches the state mandated class in Utah and believes that 10-20% of marriages which result in divorce petitions have a “reasonable possibility of repairing the relationship and being able to preserve family stability.”

The Utah Legislature is currently looking at a proposal that would move up the required divorce orientation course in the divorce process, placing it before the actual filing of the petition.

This proposal is getting a lot of negative feedback and many issues are coming to light that need to be considered.

The biggest issue is the issue of open courts in which the Constitution says out right that everyone is entitled to the courts.

An exception to this process is being proposed for victims of domestic violence. A court or police order, or other evidence of domestic violence, will waive the required course.

This is the third time Rep. Jim Nielson is trying to advance this legislation.

The Texas Supreme Court has started to hear cases that could determine the fate of same-sex couples looking to get a divorce in the Lone Star State, according to a report from the Dallas Morning News.

Sources say the complication arises from the stateâ€™s ban on gay marriage, which remains in effect in Texas and states that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

Several gay couples, however, have married in other states, and then moved to Texas. So the issue is whether these couples will be able to obtain a divorce in their adopted state.

And the issue was confused in recent years after two appellate courts reached contradictory conclusions, sending the complicated issue to the stateâ€™s highest court for resolution this week.

According to reports, in 2010, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the stateâ€™s attorney general had no jurisdiction in its case, and allowed a lesbian couple to divorce. The Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas, however, stated that a gay couple in Dallas could not legally file for divorce under Texas law.

According to James Scheske, the divorce attorney representing the same-sex couples in the Texas Supreme Court, the cases are about â€œdivorce and equality. He also says the contrary Dallas ruling â€œforecloses my clientâ€™s constitutional right to petition for divorce in his state of residency and thereby violates his rights under the 14th Amendment.â€

Also, Sheske noted in a recent court hearing that if the stateâ€™s attorney general, who is arguing against the same-sex couples, prevails, the lesbian couple in Austin will be forced to remarry four years after their divorce.

But the same-sex couples have received strong opposition from the state. Sources say Deputy Attorney General James Blacklock argued in court that all same-sex marriages are void and unenforceable in Texas, regardless of the state of their origin.

â€œTexas law does not recognize those marriages,â€ said Blackock in court this week. â€œIt is void for all purposes in Texas.â€

The issue of same-sex divorce is rapidly becoming a topic of national conversation, especially after the U.S. Supreme Courtâ€™s recent decision to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented same-sex couples who married in other states from receiving federal benefits.

Each state still has the right to define marriage as it sees fit, but states that do legalize gay marriage effectively have the support of the federal government after the recent Supreme Court decision.

The California Supreme Court ruled this week that a man who served in the military before marriage doesnâ€™t have to share certain funds earned during the marriage during a divorce, according to a report from the San Francisco Chronicle.

According to reports, the court ruled that a man who serves in the military before marriage, and then later uses funds jointly owned with his spouse to purchase military-service credits that increase his future pension payments, doesnâ€™t have to share those payments with his spouse after a divorce.

Sources say the landmark case, which involved Timothy and Julie Green, could change the way pensions are distributed during a divorce, particularly for state workers in California.

The Greens, who were married in 1992, filed for divorce in 2008. Before the two married, Timothy Green served for four years with the Air Force, and then started working as a firefighter in California for the Alameda County Fire Department.

Reports indicate that the California Public Employeesâ€™ Retirement System (CalPERS), which operates Timothy Greenâ€™s retirement fund, allows users to purchase credits for previous public service that adds to their pensions.

Green took advantage of this program in 2002, and started making payments on a 15-year installment plan. Sources say he paid roughly $11,000 into the fund before filing for divorce.

The problem, however, is that the funds used to purchase the pension credits were jointly owned by Julie Green, who argued in court that she should receive a portion of the future pension increase owed to her husband.

An appellate court agreed with Julie Green, ruling that she could share the pension increase, but the stateâ€™s highest court overruled that decision this week.

In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that Timothy Green â€œrendered his military service before the marriage, making the military service credit his separate property,â€ according to reports.

The former wife, though, is still entitled to be paid half the amount her husband paid into the system, which amounts to a little more than $6,000, sources say.

One justice noted that the case may have had a different result if Timothy and Julie Green had married after the husband accepted a job as a firefighter, but under the laws of this community property state, all seven justices agreed with the majority decision.

And while the case seems like a relatively mundane dispute between a single couple, sources expect the decision to have widespread consequences for couples looking to divorce in California.

In particular, the decision may have an impact on every divorce involving an employee whose pension is controlled by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System or the State Teachers’ Retirement System, sources say.

PAID ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT: THIS WEB SITE IS A GROUP ADVERTISEMENT AND THE PARTICIPATING
ATTORNEYS ARE INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY PAY AN ADVERTISING FEE. It is not a lawyer referral service or prepaid legal services plan. Total Divorce is not a law firm. Total Divorce does not endorse or recommend any lawyer or law firm who participates in the network. It does not make any representation and has not made any judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating lawyer. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be
performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by
other lawyers. The information contained herein is not legal advice. Any information you submit to Total Divorce may not be protected by attorney-client privilege. All photos are of models and do not depict clients. All case evaluations are performed by participating attorneys. An attorney responsible for the content of this Site is Kevin W. Chern, Esq., licensed in Illinois with offices at 25 East Washington, Suite 510, Chicago, Illinois 60602. To see the attorney in your area who is responsible for this advertisement, please click here or call 866-200-8052.

If you live in Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, New York or Wyoming, please click here for additional information.

The content found on the Total Divorce Blog is not legal advice and is purely for informational purposes. Total Divorce, LLC. does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of submissions. The information provided by the bloggers on this site may not represent the opinions of the site editor(s), Total Divorce, LLC. or its affiliates. The information contained herein is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. For additional disclaimers, please visit our Terms & Conditions.